02 November 2007

A WORD ABOUT FEINSTEIN

Remember when the advent of two female Senators from the state of California was "noteworthy"? When it was "significant?" When it seemed to auger a "new era" in US politics? Surely I'm not imagining the whole thing: it was a big deal, wasn't it? I'm sure it was.

Perhaps those who, several years ago, thought we should "celebrate" the apparently flabbergasting fact of California's Senators both being women, might have spared a moment to ponder what it really meant, in hard-boiled practical terms. Which was ... not much.

Now that Feinstein has established her Lieberman-in-drag credentials beyond all doubt, by conspiring with Chuck Schumer to ensure that alleged human Mukasey will have no real problem becoming the next Attorney General, I wonder if those who think her sex is an important aspect of her political career might actually re-think their position. After all, this is hardly the first time Feinstein has savagely poked us all in our collective eyeball; as a noted war profiteer, she's supported the Bush wars from the start, and has been an enthusiastic neo-con enabler of the highest order. She's the quintessential large-D Democrat, with all that entails, here at the nadir of the North American republic. The irresistible imperative of being a monumental hypocrite and cringing coward, in the best 21st-Century DLC tradition, far and away trumps all considerations of gender having any role to play in the polluted political atmosphere in DC. Corporate-inspired corruption is, sad to relate, a gender-neutral phenomenon.

Alright -- you can all untwist your knickers and ratchet down the self-righteousness. I don't bad-mouth Dianne Feinstein because of any closet misogynistic tendencies; I bad-mouth her because she's a goddamned corporate shill in a Senator suit. This is something to keep in mind, all you Hillary diehards out there, you misguided halfwits who're convinced there's really a difference between male and female politicians. They are what they are ... the precise composition of their gonads notwithstanding.

But I do remember when having two women in the Senate seemed significant. It's just another Bush-era joke anymore ...

2 comments:

profmarcus said...

it's pathetic... totally pathetic... difi, jane harman... what's with you people in california...? and that's just DEMOCRATS... god help us all when the r's are thrown into the mix...

yeah, yeah, i know... it's got nothing to do with california, nor, as you rightly point out, with the feminine persuasion... enabling, war-mongering, constitution-wrecking profiteers are not restricted to a gender... look at my own senator, harry reid... i've even MET the guy a couple of times and thought he was a pretty decent sort - at the time... now, look at him with his true colors flying high... what are we going to do...? sitting around, wringing my hands is getting awfully old...

E. B. said...

What are we going to do ...

Prof, that's the most critical, all-else-be-damned question that this generation of Americans will probably ever have to deal with -- at least until the Halliburton camps officially start accepting "guests," by which time we'll have more immediate problems. I wish I had an answer, any answer ... I've wrung my own hands until they hardly work anymore. I don't know, man -- in the short term, all we CAN do is keep talking, as much as possible. In the longer term ...?

As Mike Malloy always says, Keep it lit. Take care, Prof.